thegeneral 2,496 Posted July 31 1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said: Yes they were. I don't have a problem admitting that over 8 hours a couple hundred dopes acted recklessly. Apparently you don't want to admit that the left's violent rhetoric caused millions of dollars of damage over 3 months. Look, I don't blame you. Why would you want to admit that your party is the party of violence and division? ::cough:: hypocrite :: cough:: I’d say people seeing a public servant choke a dude out for like 10 minutes on video probably led to some people going nuts. Why did all the people attack the Capitol again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gepetto 1,192 Posted July 31 28 minutes ago, squistion said: Looking at the thread title... What else besides a person or a human being could try attempt to assassinate Trump? A robot? A drone? A group of people. Not sure what word would fit in that sentence other than person. Is the word person off limits for some reason? What would you suggest as a word instead? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,656 Posted July 31 Just now, Gepetto said: A group of people. Not sure what word would fit in that sentence other than person. Is the word person off limits for some reason? What would you suggest as a word instead? No, because there was only one shooter as far as we know according to the facts. A "person" is redundant. No? How about just title this "Trump assassination attempt thread"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gepetto 1,192 Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, squistion said: No, because there was only one shooter as far as we know according to the facts. A "person" is redundant. No? How about just title this "Trump assassination attempt thread"? You should tell the O.P. to edit the thread title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gepetto 1,192 Posted July 31 Seriously though, the title read the shooter's name and someone asked the o.p. to remove the name so as not to promote their name. The o.p. then replaced the shooter's name with "a person". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,656 Posted July 31 Just now, Gepetto said: Seriously though, the title read the shooter's name and someone asked the o.p. to remove the name so as not to promote their name. The o.p. then replaced the shooter's name with "a person". No, he first replaced it with "someone" which is about as vague and redundant as "a person: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gepetto 1,192 Posted July 31 Just now, squistion said: No, he first replaced it with "someone" which is about as vague and redundant as "a person: Oh yea, I remember now. Yea, I guess I agree it's not the best wording, but oh well. Doesn't really bother me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purdygood 306 Posted July 31 10 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said: Yes they were. I don't have a problem admitting that over 8 hours a couple hundred dopes acted recklessly. Apparently you don't want to admit that the left's violent rhetoric caused millions of dollars of damage over 3 months. Look, I don't blame you. Why would you want to admit that your party is the party of violence and division? ::cough:: hypocrite :: cough:: I am literally not a member of any party and never have been. Never made any political donations. If there was a "Anti Trump Party" then maybe i would join. As long as they had really cheap Chinese made hats i could wear. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purdygood 306 Posted July 31 10 hours ago, seafoam1 said: Avoid the question completely. Nice. I wasn't avoiding the question in that I dont think such people exist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TBayXXXVII 2,394 Posted July 31 11 hours ago, thegeneral said: I’d say people seeing a public servant choke a dude out for like 10 minutes on video probably led to some people going nuts. Why did all the people attack the Capitol again? So, it's (D)ifferent? LOL I'll refer you back to my previous response to you. I'll include you @purdygood in this... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,496 Posted July 31 25 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said: So, it's (D)ifferent? LOL I'll refer you back to my previous response to you. I'll include you @purdygood in this... People rioting is obviously bad. I am pointing out in the case of Jan 6th it was directed by a sad little dude who couldn’t accept he lost an election - because he’s a pathetic little betch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimHauck 2,451 Posted July 31 12 hours ago, squistion said: No, he first replaced it with "someone" which is about as vague and redundant as "a person: I believe “Someone” with the quotation marks was the original title. People asked why the quotation marks as the implication by what’s written in the OP is that @RLLD was assuming the shooter was a lib. It was then changed to the shooter’s name, but then changed to “a person” with no quotation marks because someone asked to not glorify the shooter on a low rent fantasy football message board. I really don’t care about the specific wording of the title, odd that so many here seem to. If anything the question in the post of “democrats showing their true colors?” is what should be deleted as when it happened we didn’t know the motivation and we really still don’t. But I guess OP can use the “just asking questions” defense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,496 Posted July 31 Latest reports on this nutbag was that he posted anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic stuff as a teenager. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TBayXXXVII 2,394 Posted July 31 1 hour ago, thegeneral said: People rioting is obviously bad. I am pointing out in the case of Jan 6th it was directed by a sad little dude who couldn’t accept he lost an election - because he’s a pathetic little betch. Fine... and Harris encouraged the riots by supporting donations to be raised so that the 2020 rioters can get bailed out. So, I'm not supposed to vote for Trump because he's a "pathetic little betch", but you can vote for Harris even though she supported violence against the citizens of the country. Got it. I'll hang up and listen for when you tell me why "it's (D)ifferent". 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,496 Posted July 31 3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said: Fine... and Harris encouraged the riots by supporting donations to be raised so that the 2020 rioters can get bailed out. So, I'm not supposed to vote for Trump because he's a "pathetic little betch", but you can vote for Harris even though she supported violence against the citizens of the country. Got it. I'll hang up and listen for when you tell me why "it's (D)ifferent". I think any violence, rioting, etc is pretty stupid. Doesn’t help your cause. The point I am making is in one case it was spurred by a citizen being murdered on video for 10 minutes. The other was by a man whose ego is so fragile he can’t accept he lost a popularity contest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TBayXXXVII 2,394 Posted July 31 4 minutes ago, thegeneral said: I think any violence, rioting, etc is pretty stupid. Doesn’t help your cause. The point I am making is in one case it was spurred by a citizen being murdered on video for 10 minutes. The other was by a man whose ego is so fragile he can’t accept he lost a popularity contest. LOL You're point is, my side good, your side bad... even though they're both the same (but I'm denying they're the same). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herbivore 1,033 Posted July 31 55 minutes ago, TimHauck said: I believe “Someone” with the quotation marks was the original title. People asked why the quotation marks as the implication by what’s written in the OP is that @RLLD was assuming the shooter was a lib. It was then changed to the shooter’s name, but then changed to “a person” with no quotation marks because someone asked to not glorify the shooter on a low rent fantasy football message board. I really don’t care about the specific wording of the title, odd that so many here seem to. If anything the question in the post of “democrats showing their true colors?” is what should be deleted as when it happened we didn’t know the motivation and we really still don’t. But I guess OP can use the “just asking questions” defense. First line of the post was, "Democrats showing their true colors". Sounds more than just an implication. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,656 Posted July 31 16 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said: Fine... and Harris encouraged the riots by supporting donations to be raised so that the 2020 rioters can get bailed out. So, I'm not supposed to vote for Trump because he's a "pathetic little betch", but you can vote for Harris even though she supported violence against the citizens of the country. Got it. I'll hang up and listen for when you tell me why "it's (D)ifferent". No, the bail was for the peaceful protesters who were arrested, not for the rioters (although one was mistakenly given bail) 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TBayXXXVII 2,394 Posted July 31 3 minutes ago, squistion said: No, the bail was for the peaceful protesters who were arrested, not for the rioters (although one was mistakenly given bail) LOL, keep fighting the good fight sheep. Ironic how you say it's the right that just follows their leader. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,656 Posted July 31 Just now, TBayXXXVII said: LOL, keep fighting the good fight sheep. Ironic how you say it's the right that just follows their leader. I will as long as you keep intentionally misstating the facts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewGirl 1,193 Posted July 31 13 hours ago, squistion said: No, he first replaced it with "someone" which is about as vague and redundant as "a person: I can't believe some of the crap you guys fight over. These are the types of hills you want to die on? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TBayXXXVII 2,394 Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, squistion said: I will as long as you keep intentionally misstating the facts. You keep pretending that's true. If I were you, trying to sit on a false pedestal, I'd do it too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blick 24 Posted July 31 11 minutes ago, squistion said: No, the bail was for the peaceful protesters who were arrested, not for the rioters (although one was mistakenly given bail) Why would she be involved at all? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,656 Posted July 31 Just now, blick said: Why would she be involved at all? She believed that those who were peacefully protesting the murder of George Floyd had the right to do so and should not have been arrested simply for exercising their First Amendment right of free speech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blick 24 Posted July 31 1 minute ago, squistion said: She believed that those who were peacefully protesting the murder of George Floyd had the right to do so and should not have been arrested simply for exercising their First Amendment right of free speech. It was clearly for political points but it's too easy to connect the dots between "peaceful protests" and the crap show that happened. In her position, she should have denounced the violence and not got involved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,656 Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, blick said: It was clearly for political points but it's too easy to connect the dots between "peaceful protests" and the crap show that happened. In her position, she should have denounced the violence and not got involved. I am pretty sure she denounced the violence (as did all leading Democrats) but I don't have a link offhand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrahmaBulls 627 Posted July 31 14 minutes ago, squistion said: I will as long as you keep intentionally misstating the facts. No facts were misstated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blick 24 Posted July 31 1 minute ago, squistion said: I am pretty sure she denounced the violence (as did all leading Democrats) but I don't a link offhand. You missed my point. She should not have advocated for raising money to help anyone involved that mess. She should have let the justice system work. She didn't do it because she cares about the arrested. She only did it to score politically. She's a fraud. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,656 Posted July 31 Just now, blick said: You missed my point. She should not have advocated for raising money to help anyone involved that mess. She should have let the justice system work. She didn't do it because she cares about the arrested. She only did it to score politically. She's a fraud. I don't agree. Many of the protesters were too poor to raise bail money and shouldn't have remained in jail awaiting trial if they were arrested for peacefully protesting the murder of George Floyd. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blick 24 Posted July 31 Just now, squistion said: I don't agree. Many of the protesters were too poor to raise bail money and shouldn't have remained in jail awaiting trial if they were arrested for peacefully protesting the murder of George Floyd. Who is she to judge that they were peaceful? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,656 Posted July 31 Just now, blick said: Who is she to judge that they were peaceful? She watched them, as Tim and I did for the ones here in L.A. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blick 24 Posted July 31 (edited) 4 minutes ago, squistion said: She watched them, as Tim and I did for the ones here in L.A. You're kidding, right? Even if she did, it is not her role to determine guilt. Its a very bad look. Just to add, these people put themselves in that position. If they truly wanted to "peacefully protest", why would they allow themselves to be in a riot? Edited July 31 by blick Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,656 Posted July 31 4 minutes ago, blick said: You're kidding, right? Even if she did, it is not her role to determine guilt. Its a very bad look. Just to add, these people put themselves in that position. If they truly wanted to "peacefully protest", why would they allow themselves to be in a riot? Providing bail for someone arrested (who can't afford it) is not a determination of guilt, that will be decided later in the legal system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blick 24 Posted July 31 1 minute ago, squistion said: Providing bail for someone arrested (who can't afford it) is not a determination of guilt, that will be decided later in the legal system. She's a pandering fraud. By extension, why only for the riots if she cares so much about the poor? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJuly 192 Posted July 31 14 minutes ago, squistion said: Providing bail for someone arrested (who can't afford it) is not a determination of guilt, that will be decided later in the legal system. Only poor people riot? That's pretty racist Squidrope. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,496 Posted July 31 1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said: LOL Your point is, my side good, your side bad... even though they're both the same (but I'm denying they're the same). I can’t make it any clearer for you. Rioting is bad. Rioting because some dope told you his election was stolen is a very bad look for the guy who was ginning that up. They would not have been there if not for this baby. Rioting because you saw a cop murder a civilian is also bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJuly 192 Posted July 31 19 minutes ago, thegeneral said: I can’t make it any clearer for you. Rioting is bad. Rioting because some dope told you his election was stolen is a very bad look for the guy who was ginning that up. They would not have been there if not for this baby. Rioting because you saw a cop murder a civilian is also bad. Trump really damaged you. I'm sorry. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,496 Posted July 31 22 minutes ago, JuneJuly said: Trump really damaged you. I'm sorry. He has really done a number on you that’s for sure, Rodg. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJuly 192 Posted July 31 12 minutes ago, thegeneral said: He has really done a number on you that’s for sure, Rodg. I'm rubber and you're glue! Grow up man-child. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 5,232 Posted July 31 Wait- now there are reports that the shooter was tied to an anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic website? https://www.npr.org/2024/07/30/nx-s1-5057323/fbi-trump-shooter Is it possible that, if there was indeed a political motive, this guy shot Trump because Trump wasn’t MAGA enough??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
